On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:55:08AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> + err = nfsd_create_serv();
> + if (!err) {
> + int proto = 0;
> + err = svc_addsock(nfsd_serv, fd, buf, &proto);
> + /* Decrease the count, but don't shutdown the
> + * the service
> + */
> + if (err >= 0)
> + lockd_up(proto);
> + nfsd_serv->sv_nrthreads--;
....
> @@ -211,8 +211,6 @@ static inline int nfsd_create_serv(void)
> nfsd_last_thread);
> if (nfsd_serv == NULL)
> err = -ENOMEM;
> - else
> - nfsd_serv->sv_nrthreads++;
I don't understand these sv_nrthreads changes.
> @@ -449,18 +450,23 @@ int one_sock_name(char *buf, struct svc_
> }
>
> int
> -svc_sock_names(char *buf, struct svc_serv *serv)
> +svc_sock_names(char *buf, struct svc_serv *serv, char *toclose)
> {
> - struct svc_sock *svsk;
> + struct svc_sock *svsk, *closesk = NULL;
> int len = 0;
>
> if (!serv) return 0;
> spin_lock(&serv->sv_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(svsk, &serv->sv_permsocks, sk_list) {
> int onelen = one_sock_name(buf+len, svsk);
> - len += onelen;
> + if (toclose && strcmp(toclose, buf+len) == 0)
> + closesk = svsk;
> + else
> + len += onelen;
> }
> spin_unlock(&serv->sv_lock);
> + if (closesk)
> + svc_delete_socket(closesk);
Am I missing something, or do we end up missing a lockd_down() in this
case? (Because nfsd_last_thread() isn't going to be calling
lockd_down() for this thread now that we've removed it from
sv_permsocks).
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
